him in his "Enthusiasm of Methodists and Roman Catholics compared." Wesley answered his book, and kneeled soon afterwards to receive the sacrament at his hands in his own cathedral. He notes it in his journal, with the additional remark, that he "hopes they shall meet in the kingdom of God." Standing at the window of an Inn at Oxford, bishop Horne of Norwich passed down High Street; "and there," said he, "goes a man who, had he lived in apostolic times, would have been an apostle." Such a man little deserved the insults of Warburton, the sneers of Hurd, or the affected contempt of Warburton's last biographer.

Warburton was expected to figure in the House of Lords. He seems to have made the attempt only once or twice, and it was a poor display. His declining years were those of a man of letters in a wealthy retreat. His health, too, soon began to fail. In 1768 he writes to Hurd: "You talk of your golden age of study long past; for myself, I can only say, I have the same appetite for knowledge and learned converse I ever had, though not the same appetite for writing and printing. It is time to begin to live for myself: I have lived for others longer than they deserved of me." An unhappy sentiment from an aged bishop. The next year he writes, "Old age is a losing game." He was now under the care of Dr. Heberden. His intellect rapidly decayed, and his remaining years were little better than a blank. In this melancholy state he languished till the 7th of June, 1779, when he expired at the Palace at Gloucester. It was observed that few men of such eminence had passed to the tomb with so little notice. The periodicals of the time were totally silent respecting him, with the exception of a short article in the Westminster Magazine, which was copied, with some enlargement, into the Gentleman's Magazine. "As a scholar," writes Mr. Watson, "he has secured himself no reverence from scholars; nor as a critic, from critics; nor as a divine, from divines." His monument stands in the nave of his cathedral, the inscription we read some time ago with melancholy interest. It was written by Hurd. It tells us that he was "a prelate of the most sublime genius and exquisite learning, both which talents he employed through a long life in the support of what he firmly believed, the Christian religion." A copy of it was shown to Thurlow, bishop of Lincoln, who remarked, with a sarcasm not altogether misplaced, to Cradock, who brought it to him, "Could your friend find nothing better to say in honour of his former idol, than that he died in the belief of what he conceived to be Christianity?" We, for our own part, could not help reflecting that, at the doors of the same cathedral, there died, 300 years ago, another prelate not for what he believed with the intellectual assent of a Vol, 62.-No. 303.

2 B

Warburton, but for what he knew to be the very truth of God-a witness for the testimony of Jesus. His ashes found no tomb within the cathedral, and wanted none. But it was a dishonour, we thought, to the cathedral, and a disgrace to all who had been connected with it, from the day on which its martyr-bishop died, that no monument had been erected to his memory in that proud edifice. It seemed to us as if the Church, which boasted of her Warburton, was ashamed of her martyr-bishop Hooper. But his memorial is on high, and his reward is with him.*

BISHOP COLENSO ON THE PENTATEUCH.-PART II.

The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua critically examined. By the Right Rev. John William Colenso, D.D., Bishop of Natal, Part II. London: Longman and Co. 1863.

IT happened to us once to form part of a small deputation, instructed by a London committee to call on Mr. T. B. Macaulay, at his chambers in the Albany, in order to reason with him on a public question then pending. The business having been opened by one of the party, Mr. Macaulay instantly poured forth a diatribe, or piece of declamation, setting forth his views on the question. This lasted some twelve or fifteen minutes. When he paused, one of the deputation began, modestly and diffidently, to adduce some facts leading to a different conclusion. But as he did not speak, like the orator, in a torrent, scarcely five minutes had elapsed before, without any ill-manners, Mr. Macaulay was able to begin again, and another discourse of ten or twelve minutes followed. This

*The above review had been some days in our printer's hands, when the following paragraph appeared in the "Times" of the 12th of February. We have great pleasure in transferring it to our own pages, and in noting the return of that deep reverence for our Protestant martyrs which, ever since the days of Laud, has been so shamefully disturbed. Twenty years ago we addressed a letter to the Editor of the "Record," calling attention to the fact that no memorial existed at Gloucester of its illustrious martyr. He declined to insert the letter, and we believe that he was right, on the ground that it would interfere with the project then on foot for the martyr's memorial at Oxford. There was not Protestant feeling enough in the land for two such projects at the same time:

"BISHOP HOOPER.-On Monday a statue of the martyr Bishop Hooper was formally unveiled at Gloucester, in the presence of the Mayor and Corporation, the local clergy, and about 20,000 spectators. It cost 100 guineas, and was executed by Mr. Thornhill, of Dublin. It stands on a handsome stone pedestal, surmounted by a canopy and an elegant Gothic spire, which have been recently erected by the poorer inhabitants of Gloucester and its neighbourhood, at a cost of about 400/., on the spot where the pious bishop was burnt. In the evening a public dinner, presided over by the Mayor, and attended by the principal citizens, took place at the King's Head Hotel. The proceedings of the day celebrated the 308th anniversary of Hooper's martyrdom."

was repeated two or three times, till, when an hour-and-a-half had elapsed, the deputation felt compelled by a sense of decency to "trespass no longer on the honourable member's time." One and all felt that their object had not been gained; that they were sent to talk to Mr. Macaulay; instead of which, he had been talking to them. We well remember saying to the spokesman, as we left the room, "Did you not observe that, in point of fact, Mr. Macaulay did not really hear one word you were saying. Even while he appeared to listen, his thoughts were evidently occupied in framing his next argument."

What Mr. Macaulay was on that occasion, bishop Colenso is now. In October last he put forth a volume of 200 pages, containing some very startling assertions, challenging the "historic character" of every part of the Pentateuch, the truth of which he impugned in about eighteen several particulars. This assault upon God's word naturally brought forth a number of defenders; and, in weekly and monthly journals and separate publications, above a score of replies have appeared within the last two months. Of course, we are to a certain extent disqualified from giving an opinion, having ourselves taken part in the controversy; but we sincerely believe that any impartial student, looking over these various replies, would hesitate to say, that in several important matters the bishop stood convicted of culpable error, and might fairly be expected to offer some apology. But like Mr. Macaulay, he can pour forth accusations, and when the defence is made, his mind is wandering elsewhere, and he neither sees nor hears what is said. This absence of mind has, in several instances, a very strange effect. We will mention one or two. 1. He opens his attack on the Pentateuch with a chapter on "the family of Judah;" the gist of his complaint being, that two persons, Hezron and Hamul, are stated in Genesis xlvi. to have gone down to Egypt with Jacob, whereas they could not at that time have been born. The foundation of his whole argument is this:-" Now Judah was forty-two years old, according to the story, when he went down with Jacob into Egypt." (p. 18.)

Well, half a dozen of his opponents have remarked at once that "the story" says no such thing. Not one syllable is there in the whole Book of Genesis which either ascerts or implies that "Judah was forty-two years old when he went down into Egypt." The whole is a supposition-a mere hypothesis-a calculation made by some commentators, and which was controverted by other commentators, long before bishop Colenso was born. Instead, therefore, of putting this supposed fact in the front of his argument, as if it were universally admitted, or were incontrovertible, bishop Colenso.

ought to have given reasons for disregarding the opinions of Dr. Kennicott, bishop Horsley, and others, before he thus placed a disputed point, as if it were undisputed, as the basis of his reasonings. This, we say, has been urged upon the bishop by at least half-a-dozen respectable opponents. And what is his reply?

He is entirely silent. He has published a revised edition of his First Part, in which he allows the words, "Judah was forty-two years old, according to the story," to remain ; although it has been proved to him again and again, by competent judges, that "the story" says nothing of the kind. But, like Mr. Macaulay, he cannot hear, or cannot see. The basis, the foundation of his argument, is assailed; but he either is, or pretends to be, ignorant of the attack, or careless about it. Does this proceed from conscious strength? Assuredly not; for the fact alleged against him, that he has untruly stated that "the story" represents Judah as being forty-two when he went into Egypt, is one which every English reader can verify for himself by half an hour's study of the Book of Genesis.

Again; the chief and central statement in the Book of Exodus which is impugned by bishop Colenso, is that which occurs at ch. xii. v. 37, that "the children of Israel" marched out of Egypt "about 600,000 on foot that were men, beside children." This he declares, in his 16th chapter, to be "quite impossible;" and, in his 17th he professes to show that "instead of 600,000 warriors in the prime of life, there could not have been 5000." (p. 103.) This extraordinary conclusion he arrives at by assuming: 1. That the seventy persons named in Genesis xlvi. constituted the whole family and household of Jacob; 2. That only four generations occurred in the 215 years' residence in Egypt; 3. That in each family there were on the average four and a half sons. And thus, in 215 years, the total of males would have grown to be 4923, and not 600,000.

Now, to this monstrous hypothesis it has been objected by a dozen opponents :

1. That, professing at p. 101 to "take his data from the Pentateuch itself," he has no right to assume that Jacob had only one daughter, and that all his eleven sons had only one daughter among them, when the 7th verse of the chapter before him distinctly speaks of "Jacob's daughters and of his sons' daughters."

2. That professing to be guided by common sense, he had no right to assume the existence of a family of eleven sons of Jacob having among them fifty-one sons and only one daughter; inasmuch as any physiologist could have told him that no such family ever existed upon earth, or, without a miracle, was ever likely to exist.

3. That, in the face of eight or nine distinct passages in Genesis, in which the households and the servants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are spoken of as very numerous, he had no right to assume that this great and rich man Jacob (Gen. xxxii. 5; xxxvi. 7) had no servants.

4. That, had he allowed for the females of Jacob's family, and for the servants, he would have brought the whole household or tribe, at a moderate computation, to at least 500 souls.

5. That such a tribe would double itself, according to Malthus and other writers on population, at least every eighteen years, and that thus it would number, in 216 years, more than 2,000,000 of souls. Hence, that very augmentation which the bishop represents as "impossible" and incredible, is shown, by the facts of the case, and the laws of human increase, to be both possible and probable.

This, we say, has been placed before the bishop by several writers. What is his reply? As before, silence! He sees not, or hears not. Unless, indeed, we adopt the harsher supposition, that having no reply, he affects not to hear the objector. But to suppose this, is to suppose the bishop to be no seeker after truth; but a mere hater of the Bible, after the fashion of Voltaire. We dare not so far "judge our brother," as to assert positively that the bishop has no desire to discover the truth; but we may and must say, that in the spirit manifested by him, there is, clearly, the greatest possible obstacle to any such discovery. We never before read a controversial work so full of offences against all the laws of fair argumentation. For instance, when in Chap. xvi. of Part I., he finds a statement in the Book of Chronicles inconvenient, as destructive of his hypothesis of the "four generations," he coolly remarks that it is plain that we are justified in dismissing the whole account in the Book of Chronicles, about the genealogy of Joshua, as most probably erroneous." (p. 100.) Yet, only thirty pages after, finding a statement in 2 Chronicles XXX., which seems to him to create a difficulty in believing the Pentateuch, he at once maintains the view given in Chronicles, and declares the statement in Numbers incredible. And thus is it always. If any hypothesis creates a difficulty, that hypothesis, in bishop Colenso's view, is always the true one. any other interpretation or view is proposed, which solves the difficulty, that view, to the bishop, always appears preposterous and absurd. We know no work on a similar subject in which the "foregone conclusion" is so evident as it is throughout bishop Colenso's volumes.

If

We could not give a more striking instance of this, than we find in his mode of handling the first and second chapters of Genesis. It is a part of his plan to insist upon the different